- (1.) The petitioner was working as a Supervisor (Vigilance) in the City Establishment of the Conservancy Branch of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay. The work of removing and transport of refuse in the suburbs for the period from 1-6-1968 to 31-10-1968 was entrusted to the contractors Messers Ismail N. Halai. The contractors appointed Messers Western Bombay Traders, as their sub-contractors for this work. It is not in dispute that the petitioners son Yoginder Kaul was the Proprietor of this firm. It appears that the Corporation discovered that Yoginder was only a College going boy aged 20, and the entire contract was carried out by the petitioner himself. It was also found that the petitioner had manoeuvred to obtain sub-contract in the name of his son though he himself conducted the said business. It was also discovered that the petitioner had influenced some officers of the Corporation in different parts connected with removal of this refuse, in getting work for this firm. He even unauthorisedly gave some directions to the supervisory staff of the Conservancy Branch in certain Wards in this connection and also approched M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra and M/s. Bandra Auto Service for getting benefits of their work to the said business. All these activities being in breach of the service regulations of the Corporation, by an order dated 25-11-1968, the petitioner was suspended from service with view to hold departmental enquiry against him. Charge- sheet was actually served on the petitioner along with the statement of allegations on 7-7-1969. The charge-sheet required the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days from the receipt of the said charge- sheet. The charge-sheet contained in all six charges.
(2.) By his explanation dated 1-9-1969, the petitioner denied all the allegations against him in this charge-sheet. He, however, admitted that his son was staying with him and was working as sub-contractor in the name and style of M/s. Western Bombay Traders.
(3.) Originally, the enquiry was to be held on 21st July 1969. The same was, however, adjourned at the instance of the petitioner to 8-9-1969. The enquiry continued from 8-9- 1969 to 3-10-1969. 3/4 officers of the Corporation were also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner in the said enquiry. The petitioner had requested for adjournment of the enquiry from 8-9-1969 to October 1969 on account of his illness. The enquiry officer, however, pleaded his inability to adjourn the matter as several other officers were being tried along with the petitioner and number of witnesses going to be examined in the enquiry were reluctant to come again. The enquiry officer submitted his report of this ex parte enquiry on 26-10-1969. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why allegations should not be held to have been proved and why he should not be punished in accordance with the service regulations. By his letter dated 7-1-1970, the petitioner protested against holding ex parte enquiry without giving him any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and insisted that the petitioner should be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses to enable him to demonstrate how the statements given by them were lies. The Municipal Commissioner upheld the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and imposed penalty in accordance with the rules. He was permanently demoted as senior overseer on Rs. 290/- in the grade of Rs. 175-10-185-12- 245-EB-15-350. Period of his suspension was also left uncondoned as charges were held to have been proved. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was summarily dismissed by an order dated 19-2-1971. The peititoner challenged validity of this order by invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in Misc. Peititon No. 248 of 1971. The learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the said petition by his exhaustive order dated 23rd March 1976. The petitioner challenges validity of this order in this appeal.;